beheld, is of vital moment. In Staffordshire it is unlucky to see this
sight through trees. A correspondent in _Notes and Queries_ (21st
January, 1882) once saw a person almost in tears because she
looked on the new moon through her veil, feeling convinced that
misfortune would follow. Henderson cites a canon to be observed
by those who would know what year they would wed. "Look at the
first new moon of the year through a silk handkerchief which has
never been washed. As many moons as you see through the
handkerchief (the threads multiplying the vision), so many years
will pass ere you are married." [404] Hunt tells us, what in fact is
widely believed, that "to see the new moon for the first time through
glass, is unlucky; you may be certain that you will break glass
before that moon is out. I have known persons whose attention has
been called to a clear new moon hesitate. 'Hev I seed her out o'
doors afore?' if not, they will go into the open air, and, if possible,
show the moon 'a piece of gold,' or, at all events, turn their money."
[405] Mrs. Latham says: "Many of our Sussex superstitions are
probably of Saxon origin; amongst which may be the custom of
bowing or curtseying to the new or Lady moon, as she is styled, to
deprecate bad luck. There is another kindred superstition, that the
Queen of night will dart malignant rays upon you, if on the first day
of her re-appearance you look up to her without money in your
pocket. But if you are not fortunate enough to have any there, in
order to avert her evil aspect, you must immediately turn head over
heels! It is considered unlucky to see the new moon through a
window-pane, and I have known a maidservant shut her eyes when
closing the shutters lest she should unexpectedly see it through the
glass. Do not kill your pig until full moon, or the pork will be
ruined." [406] In Suffolk, also, "it is considered unlucky to kill a pig
in the wane of the moon; if it is done, the pork will waste in boiling.
I have known the shrinking of bacon in the pot attributed to the fact
of the pig having been killed in the moon's decrease; and I have also
known the death of poor piggy delayed, or hastened, so as to happen
during its increase." [407]
The desirability of possessing _silver_ in the pocket, and of turning
it over, when the new moon is first seen, is a point of some interest.
Forbes Leslie says, "The ill-luck of having no _silver_ money
--coins of other metals being of no avail--when you first see or hail a
new moon, is still a common belief from Cornwall to Caithness, as
well as in Ireland." [408] And Jamieson writes: "Another
superstition, equally ridiculous and unaccountable, is still regarded
by some. They deem it very unlucky to see the new moon for the
first time without having _silver_ in one's pocket. Copper is of no
avail." [409] We venture to think that this is not altogether
unaccountable. The moon at night, in a clear sky, reflects a brilliant
whiteness. The two Hebrew words used of this luminary in the
Bible, mean "pale light" and "white." "Hindooism says that the
moon, Soma, was turned into a female called Chandra--'the White
or Silvery One.'" [410] The Santhals of India call the sun _Chando_,
which means bright, and is also a name for the moon. Now pure
silver is of a very white colour and of a strong metallic lustre. It was
one of the earliest known metals, and used as money from the
remotest times. Its whiteness led the ancient astrologers, as it
afterwards led the alchemists, to connect it with the moon, and to
call it Diana and Luna, names previously given to the satellite. For
Artemis, the Greek Diana, the Ephesian craftsmen made silver
shrines. The moon became the symbol of silver; and to this day
fused nitrate of silver is called _lunar_ caustic. It was natural and
easy for superstition to suppose that silver was the moon's own
metal; and to imagine that upon the reappearance of the lunar deity
or demon, its beams should be propitiated by some argentine
possession. We find that silver was exclusively used in the worship
of the moon in Peru.
In a book published in the earlier part of last century, and attributed
to Daniel Defoe, we read; "To see a new moon the first time after
her change, on the right hand, or directly before you, betokens the
utmost good fortune that month; as to have her on your left, or
behind you, so that in turning your head back you happen to see her,
foreshows the worst; as also, they say, to be without gold in your
pocket at that time is of very bad consequence." [411] The mistake
in substituting gold for silver here is easily explained. As among the
Romans _aes_ meant both copper and money; and among the
French _argent_ means both silver and money in general; so in
England gold is the common expression for coin of any substance.
Silver being _money_, the word gold was thus substituted; the
generic for the specific. Other superstitions besides those above
noticed are found in different parts of our enlightened land. Denham
says, "I once saw an aged matron turn her apron to the new moon to
insure good luck for the ensuing month." [412] And Halliwell
mentions a prayer customary among some persons:--
"I see the moon, and the moon sees me.
God bless the moon, and God bless me." [413]
In Devonshire it is lucky to see the new moon over the right, but
unlucky to see it over the left shoulder; and to see it straight before
is good fortune to the end of the month. "In Renfrewshire, if a man's
house be burnt during the wane of the moon, it is deemed unlucky.
If the same misfortune take place when the moon is waxing, it is
viewed as a presage of prosperity. In Orkney, also, it is reckoned
unlucky to flit, or to remove from one habitation to another, during
the waning of the moon." [414] A recent writer tells us that in
Orkney "there are superstitions likewise associated with the moon.
The increase, and full growth, and wane of that satellite are the
emblems of a rising, flourishing, and declining fortune. No business
of importance is begun during the moon's wane; if even an animal is
killed at that period, the flesh is supposed to be unwholesome. A
couple to think of marrying at that time would be regarded as
recklessly careless respecting their future happiness Old people in
some parts of Argyllshire were wont to invoke the Divine blessing
on the moon after the monthly change. The Gaelic word for fortune
is borrowed from that which denotes the full moon; and a marriage
or birth occurring at that period is believed to augur prosperity."
[415]
Kirkmichael, says another writer on the Highlands of Scotland, hath
"its due proportion of that superstition which generally prevails over
the Highlands. Unable to account for the cause, they consider the
effects of times and seasons as certain and infallible. The moon in
her increase, full growth, and in her wane, are with them the
emblems of a rising, flourishing, and declining fortune. At the last
period of her revolution they carefully avoid to engage in any
business of importance; but the first and the middle they seize with
avidity, presaging the most auspicious issue to their undertakings.
Poor Martinus Scriblerus never more anxiously watched the
blowing of the west wind to secure an heir to his genius, than the
love-sick swain and his nymph for the coming of the new moon to
be noosed together in matrimony. Should the planet happen to be at
the height of her splendour when the ceremony is performed, their
future life will be a scene of festivity, and all its paths strewed over
with rosebuds of delight. But when her tapering horns are turned
towards the north, passion becomes frost-bound, and seldom thaws
till the genial season again approaches. From the moon they not
only draw prognostications of the weather, but according to their
creed also discover future events. There they are clearly portrayed,
and ingenious illusion never fails in the explanation. The veneration
paid to this planet, and the opinion of its influences, are obvious
from the meaning still affixed to some words of the Gaelic
language. In Druidic mythology, when the circle of the moon was
complete, fortune then promised to be most propitious. Agreeably to
this idea, _rath_, which signifies in Gaelic a wheel or circle, is
transferred to signify fortune." [416]
Forbes Leslie writes: "The influence which the moon was supposed
to exercise on mankind, as well as on inanimate objects, may be
traced in the practice of the Druids. It is not yet extinct in Scotland;
and the moon, in the increase, at the full, and on the wane, are
emblems of prosperity, established success, or declining fortune, by
which many persons did, and some still do, regulate the period for
commencing their most important undertakings." [417] And yet
once more, to make the induction most conclusive; we are told that
"the canon law anxiously prohibited observance of the moon as
regulating the period of marriage; nor was any regard to be paid to
certain days of the year for ceremonies. If the Lucina of the ancients
be identified with Diana, it was not unreasonable to court the care of
the parturient, by selecting the time deemed most propitious. The
strength of the ecclesiastical interdiction does not seem to have
prevailed much in Scotland. Friday, which was consecrated to a
northern divinity, has been deemed more favourable for the union.
In the southern districts of Scotland, and in the Orkney Islands, the
inhabitants preferred the increase of the moon for it. Auspicious
circumstances were anticipated in other parts, from its celebration at
full moon. Good fortune depended so much on the increase of that
luminary, that nothing important was undertaken during its wane.
Benefit even accrued to the stores provided during its increase, and
its effect in preserving them is still credited." [418] To what, but to
this prevalent belief in lunar influence on fortune can Shakespeare
allude, when Romeo swears:
"_Rom_. Lady, by yonder blessed moon I swear,
That tips with silver all these fruit-tree tops--
_Jul_. Oh, swear not by the moon, the inconstant moon,
That monthly changes in her circled orb,
Lest that thy love prove likewise variable." [419]
Upon the physiological influence of the lunar rays in the generation
or aggravation of disease, we have but little to add to what has been
already written. It is a topic for a special treatise, and properly
belongs to those medical experts whose research and practice in this
particular branch of physics qualify them to speak with plenary
authority. Besides, it has been so wisely handled by Dr. Forbes
Winslow, in his admirable monograph on _Light_, that inquirers
cannot follow a safer guide than his little book affords. Dr. Winslow
accounts for the theory of planetary influence partly by the action of
the moon in producing the tides. He says: "Astronomers having
admitted that the moon was capable of producing this physical
effect upon the waters of the ocean, it was not altogether unnatural
that the notion should become not only a generally received but a
popular one, that the ebb and flow of the tides had a material
influence over the bodily functions. The Spaniards imagine that all
who die of chronic diseases breathe their last during the ebb.
Southey says, that amongst the wonders of the isles and city of
Cadiz, which the historian of that city, Suares de Salazar,
enumerates, one is, according to p. Labat, that the sick never die
there while the tide is rising or at its height, but always during the
ebb. He restricts the notion to the isle of Leon, but implies that the
effect was there believed to take place in diseases of all kinds, acute
as well as chronic. 'Him fever,' says the negro in the West Indies,
'shall go when the water come low; him always come not when the
tide high.' The popular notion amongst the negroes appears to be
that the ebb and flow of the tides are caused by a '_fever of the
sea_,' which rages for six hours, and then intermits for as many
more." [420] Dr. Winslow then subjoins a long list of learned
authorities, several of whose writings he subjects to a brief analysis.
He disapproves of the presumption that the subject is altogether
visionary and utopian; and affirms that it has not always been
pursued by competent observers. Periodicity is noted as an
important symptom in disease; a feature in febrile disturbance which
the present writer himself had abundant opportunity of marking and
measuring during an epidemic of yellow fever in the city of
Savannah in the year 1876. This periodicity Dr. Winslow regards as
the foundation of the alleged lunar influence in morbid conditions.
Some remarkable cases are referred to, which, if the fact of the
moon's interference with human functions could be admitted, would
go a long way to corroborate and confirm it. The supposed influence
of the moon on plants is not passed over, nor the chemical
composition of lunar light as a possible evil agency. Still
considering the matter _sub judice_, Dr. Winslow then proceeds to
the alleged influence of the moon on the insane; a question with
which he was pre-eminently competent to cope. After alluding to
the support given to the popular belief by poets and philosophers of
ancient and modern times, the question of periodicity, or "lucid
intervals," is again discussed, this time in its mental aspect, and the
hygienic or sanatory influence of light is allowed its meed of
consideration. The final result of the investigation is that the matter
is held to be purely speculative, and it is esteemed wise to hold in
reserve any theory in relation to the subject that may have been
formed. With this conclusion we are greatly disappointed. Dr.
Winslow's aid in the inquiry is most valuable, and if he, after his
careful review of pathological literature on lunar influence, coupled
with his own extended experience, holds the question in abeyance,
who will venture upon a decision? We however believe, notwithstanding
every existing difficulty, that the subject will be brought
into clear light ere long, and all superstition end in accurate
science. Meanwhile, many, even of the enlightened, will cling to the
unforgotten fancy which gave rise to the word _lunatic_, and in
cases of mental derangement will moralize with young Banks in the
_Witch of Edmonton_ (1658), "When the moon's in the full, then
wit's in the wane."
MOON INHABITATION.
Science having practically diminished the moon's distance, and
rendered distinct its elevations and depressions, it is natural for
"those obstinate questionings of sense and outward things" to urge
the inquiry, _Is the moon inhabited_? This question it is easier to
ask than to answer. It has been a mooted point for many years, and
our wise men of the west seem still disposed to give it up, or, at
least, to adjourn its decision for want of evidence. Of "guesses at
truth" there have been a great multitude, and of dogmatic assertions
not a few; but demonstrations are things which do not yet appear.
We now take leave to report progress, and give the subject a little
ventilation. We do not expect to furnish an Ariadne's thread, but we
may hope to find some indication of the right way out of this
labyrinth of uncertainty. _Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi_: or, as
the German proverb says, "Truth creeps not into corners"; its life is
the light.
But before we advance a single step, we desire to preclude all
misunderstanding on one point, by distinctly avowing our
conviction that the teachings of Christian theology are not at all
involved in the issue of this discussion, whatever it may prove.
Infinite harm has been done by confusing the religion of science
with the science of religion. Religion _is_ a science, and science is a
religion; but they are not identical. Philosophy ought to be pious,
and piety ought to be philosophical; but philosophy and piety are
two quantities and qualities that may dwell apart, though, happily,
they may also be found in one nature. Each has its own faculties and
functions; and in our present investigation, religion has nothing
more to do than to shed the influence of reverence, humility, and
teachableness over the scientific student as he ponders his problem
and works out the truth. In this, and in kindred studies, we may
yield without reluctance what a certain professor of religion
concedes, and grant without grudging what a certain professor of
science demands. Dr. James Martineau says, "In so far as Church
belief is still committed to a given kosmogony and natural history of
man, it lies open to scientific refutation"; and again, "The whole
history of the Genesis of things Religion must unconditionally
surrender to the Sciences." [421] In this we willingly concur, for
science ought to be, and will be, supreme in its own domain. Bishop
Temple does "not hesitate to ascribe to Science a clearer knowledge
of the true interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis, and to
scientific history a truer knowledge of the great historical prophets.
Science enters into Religion, and the believer is bound to recognise
its value and make use of its services." [422] Then, to quote the
professor of science, Dr. John Tyndall says. "The impregnable
position of science may be described in a few words. We claim, and
we shall wrest from Theology, the entire domain of cosmological
theory." [423] We wish the eloquent professor all success. It was not
the spirit of primitive Christianity, but the spirit of priestly
ignorance, intolerance, and despotism, which invaded the territory
of natural science; and if those who are its rightful lords can recover
the soil, we bid them heartily, God speed! We have been driven to
these remarks by a twofold impulse. First, we can never forget the
injury that has been inflicted on science by the oppositions of a
headless religion; any more than we can forget the injury which has
been inflicted on religion by the oppositions of a heartless science.
Secondly, we have seen this very question of the inhabitation of the
planets and satellites rendered a topic of ridicule for Thomas Paine,
and an inviting theme for raillery to others of sophistical spirit, by
the way in which it has been foolishly mixed up with sacred or
spiritual concerns. Surely, the object of God in the creation of our
terrestrial race, or the benefits of the death of Jesus Christ, can have
no more to do with the habitability of the moon, than the doctrine of
the Trinity has to do with the multiplication table and the rule of
three, or the hypostatical union with the chemical composition of
water and light. Having said thus much of compulsion, we return,
not as ministers in the temple of religion so much as students in the
school of science, to consider with docility the question in dispute,
_Is the moon inhabited_?
Three avenues, more or less umbrageous, are open to us; all of
which have been entered. They may be named _observation_,
_induction_, and _analogy_. The first, if we could pursue it, would
explicate the enigma at once. The second, if clear, would satisfy our
reason, which, in such a matter, might be equivalent to sight. And
the third might conduct us to a shadow which would "prove the
substance true." We begin by dealing briefly with the argument
from _observation_. Here our data are small and our difficulties
great. One considerable inconvenience in the inquiry is, of course,
the moon's distance. Though she is our next-door neighbour in the
many-mansioned universe, two hundred and thirty-seven thousand
miles are no mere step heavenward. Transit across the intervenient
space being at present impracticable, we have to derive our most
enlarged views of this "spotty globe" from the "optic glass." But this
admirable appliance, much as it has revealed, is thus far wholly
inadequate to the solution of our mystery. Robert Hooke, in the
seventeenth century, thought that he could construct a telescope
with which we might discern the inhabitants of the moon life-size
--seeing them as plainly as we see the inhabitants of the earth. But,
alas! the sanguine mathematician died in his sleep, and his dream
has not yet come true. Since Hooke's day gigantic instruments have
been fitted up, furnished with all the modern improvements which
could be supplied through the genius or generosity of such
astronomers as Joseph Fraunhofer and Sir William Herschel, the
third Earl of Rosse and the fourth Duke of Northumberland. But all
of these worthy men left something to be done by their successors.
Consequently, not long since, our scientists set to work to increase
their artificial eyesight. The Rev. Mr. Webb tells us that "the first
'Moon Committee' of the British Association recommended a power
of 1,000." But he discourages us if we anticipate large returns; for
he adds: "Few indeed are the instruments or the nights that will bear
it; but when employed, what will be the result? Since increase of
magnifying is equivalent to decrease of distance, we shall see the
moon as large (though not as distinct) as if it were 240 miles off,
and any one can judge what could be made of the grandest building
upon earth at that distance." [424] If therefore we are to see the
settlement of the matter in the speculum of a telescope, it may be
some time before we have done with what Guillemin calls "the
interesting, almost insoluble question, of the existence of living and
organized beings on the surface of the satellite of our little earth."
[425] Some cynic may interpose with the quotation,--
"But optics sharp it needs, I ween,
To see what is not to be seen." [426]
True, but it remains to be shown that there is nothing to be seen
beyond what _we_ see. We are not prepared to deny the existence of
everything which our mortal eyes may fail to trace. Four hundred
years ago all Europe believed that to sail in search of a western
continent was to wish "to see what is not to be seen"; but a certain
Christopher Columbus went out persuaded of things not seen as yet,
and having embarked in faith he landed in sight. The lesson must
not be lost upon us.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Because we cannot now make out either habitations or habitants on
the moon, it does not necessarily follow that the night will never
come when, through some mightier medium than any ever yet
constructed or conceived, we shall descry, beside mountains and
valleys, also peopled plains and populous cities animating the fair
features of this beautiful orb. One valuable auxiliary of the
telescope, destined to play an important part in lunar discovery,
must not be overlooked. Mr. Norman Lockyer says, "With reference
to the moon, if we wish to map her correctly, it is now no longer
necessary to depend on ordinary eye observations alone; it is
perfectly clear that by means of an image of the moon, taken by
photography, we are able to fix many points on the lunar surface."
[427] With telescopic and photographic lenses in skilled hands, and
a wealth of inventive genius in fertile brains, we can afford to wait a
long while before we close the debate with a final negative.